Would it be fair to say that during a journey at the the near speed of light a second would still be a second but it would take longer to pass due to time dialation?
Thanks. How is it that the law of physics is the same in every FOR when in the spacecraft FOR the astronaught clearly is not experiencing the same law of physics behaviour as that being experienced in the Earth FOR?
Can anyone tell me if time dilation would be actually experienced by the astronaught twin.
Would he be actually be in slow motion at the near speed of light or not. I am getting conflincting info from different people. I understand that any trip involves time dilation and an element of slow motion.
In his famous work on special relativity in 1905, Albert Einstein predicted that when two clocks were brought together and synchronized, and then one was moved away and brought back, the clock which had undergone the traveling would be found to be lagging behind the clock which had stayed...
Say one was going around a distant star and back to Earth in a spaceship. The clock in the spaceship once back on Earth has run say 12 hours slow to the one on the ground, thus the hands on the clock in the ship surely would have moved in slow motion compared to those on the ground just as human...
Correct. For a while I was puzzled as to why it is important to Relativity that, when traveling at the near-speed of light, the twin should appear to be experiencing normal conditions
I am told that if he isn't this would falsifiy the theory of relativity. Is this correct.?
We all...
I don't have a problem with this. I am pleased at Darwin's affirmation of the suggestion that time travel was probably impossible presumably due to differential ageing which would preclude the violation of cause and effect.
Lets say we witness the twin paradox in real life without any knowledge of relativity. On Earth we see the astronaught twin climb out of his spacecraft considerably younger than his brother and both the clock on the ground and the one in the spaceship show different times.
With no knowledge...
From an Earthly frame of reference( in other words the FOR of reality), does this mean that near- light travel has to be spent in extreme slow motion? Is this possible?
But what if at the near speed of light each second had slowed to the point when 1 beat per second would lead to blackout...
For me this is absolutely huge - I don't have a problem with anything else but this. I can't get my mind to accept the fact that "the books of time do not have to be balanced" like in accountancy.
From my Earthly point of view, it is essential to explain the discrepancy in the time of the two...
With reference to the twin paradox: in order for one twin to end up younger than the twin on the ground the astronaught twin would have had to have spent his time in space in "slow motion" to account for difference in time between the clocks on the ground and on the spaceship.
Is this correct?
1) I am quite happy with the term denoting "without research" or indeed "obvious"
2) Surely nowhere on Earth would a traveller return from a journey having aged less than the twin he left behind? Does this not violate the example of a principle of biology that I gave?
I must adjourn
I should imagine an a priori principle of biology would be the requirement that Planet Earth conditions (be they artificial or natural) be maintained throughout the lifetime of a biological system.
This would be particularly applicable when dealing with the passage of time.